Same people, never enough, same reaction to something positive - all they do is complain and demean - typical liberals.
Same people, never enough, same reaction to something positive - all they do is complain and demean - typical liberals.
I just discovered that the threshold will be indexed for inflation, if true, then the W2G requirements will exceed the maximum payout on $0.50 video poker. I'm looking forward to 2027, when inflation should cause it to exceed the $2,000 threshold.
Hopefully, I will still have a positive play opportunity locally; it's getting a bit skinny at this point.
IRS Raises Slot Jackpot Reporting Threshold to $2,000 in 2026
"Under the revised IRS guidance, the new $2,000 minimum will also be indexed annually for inflation. That ensures the threshold adjusts automatically in future years rather than remaining static for decades.
The change will likely reduce the number of handpay events on casino floors — a long-standing friction point for both operators and players. At the same time, the annual inflation index is a change that many in the industry have argued is long overdue."
Originally posted by: MaxFlavor
I just discovered that the threshold will be indexed for inflation, if true, then the W2G requirements will exceed the maximum payout on $0.50 video poker. I'm looking forward to 2027, when inflation should cause it to exceed the $2,000 threshold.
Hopefully, I will still have a positive play opportunity locally; it's getting a bit skinny at this point.
IRS Raises Slot Jackpot Reporting Threshold to $2,000 in 2026
"Under the revised IRS guidance, the new $2,000 minimum will also be indexed annually for inflation. That ensures the threshold adjusts automatically in future years rather than remaining static for decades.
The change will likely reduce the number of handpay events on casino floors — a long-standing friction point for both operators and players. At the same time, the annual inflation index is a change that many in the industry have argued is long overdue."
Yeah, an improvement for sure, but the adjustment for inflation should have been from the original institution of the policy (however long ago that was) to now. Whatever criteria were applied to determine the original $1200 number should be applied now. As I said, a $5000 threshold was what most players and casinos alike wanted.
It would not be unlike if the federal minimum wage was raised to $8 and then tied to inflation. That would fix it permanently at "too low."
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Yeah, an improvement for sure, but the adjustment for inflation should have been from the original institution of the policy (however long ago that was) to now. Whatever criteria were applied to determine the original $1200 number should be applied now. As I said, a $5000 threshold was what most players and casinos alike wanted.
It would not be unlike if the federal minimum wage was raised to $8 and then tied to inflation. That would fix it permanently at "too low."
Is that ALL you do is complain? Are you ever satisfied?
In any event, the pitifully inadequate adjustment to the reporting threshold isnt nearly as consequential as the Dumb Trump 90% of losses rule, which if found "legal" by a Trump "court," will all but snuff out recreational gambling, as soon as people realize they're being forced to pay taxes on phantom winnings.
Given that casinos do have a fair amount of influence, I expect that rule to be quietly scuttled, as MGM or CET or someone discreetly, or overtly, slips a couple hundred million into Trump's pocket. Maybe a throne room "donation"?
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
The original proposed threshold was indeed $5000, but Trump pressured the IRS to reduce it. That was coincident with the infamous 90% of losses move.
It seems that Trump hates gamblers. Kind of odd, for someone who blew through his first $350 million building casinos and bankrupting them.
Kevin, I see here you were challenged almost 3 days ago to post links to proof of this statement, yet despite your several other posts on this thread since then, you have somehow not provided this. Can you tell us why you haven't?
Originally posted by: AKQJ10
Kevin, I see here you were challenged almost 3 days ago to post links to proof of this statement, yet despite your several other posts on this thread since then, you have somehow not provided this. Can you tell us why you haven't?
Because David Miller was the one who demanded it, as he constantly does, and I don't obey him.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Because David Miller was the one who demanded it, as he constantly does, and I don't obey him.
Another instance of Lying Lewis copping out - the truth is Lewis can not back up his previous lying statement with facts - so he uses his dislike for me as his lame excuse for not answering. This is nothing new for him.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Another instance of Lying Lewis copping out - the truth is Lewis can not back up his previous lying statement with facts - so he uses his dislike for me as his lame excuse for not answering. This is nothing new for him.
Keep your personal attack shit in the Sink. Behave yourself, child.
Originally posted by: AKQJ10
Kevin, I see here you were challenged almost 3 days ago to post links to proof of this statement, yet despite your several other posts on this thread since then, you have somehow not provided this. Can you tell us why you haven't?
I made two statements. Which are you disputing? The loss deduction and reporting threshold changes were in the Evil Big Pig Bill, and anyone can verify that easily. As far as the Orange Turd is concerned, we all know that NOTHING in that bill was included without his approval.
If you'd like, I can provide you with sources verifying that adjusted for inflation and CPI, a $5000 threshold is the rough equivalent of the original $1200 requirement.